Israel vs Hamas thread.

[lisa needs braces]

Do you have a recommendation to solve or mitigate the current turmoil?

One state solution.

[Bulldog]

One state solution.

Would that satisfy the Palestinians?

[lisa needs braces]

Would that satisfy the Palestinians?

You mean you think they really want to "drive the Jews to the sea" rather than such language being a reaction to their decades long oppression and mistreatment by Jews?

[Bulldog]

You mean you think they really want to "drive the Jews to the sea" rather than such language being a reaction to their decades long oppression and mistreatment by Jews?

Beats me.  You're the one who knows the history and current situation; you're the one who knows why the USA keeps supporting Israel.  So, my previous question as to whether "one state" would satisfy the Palestinians still stands.  Although a complex matter, a man of your insight might be able to see the outlines of a viable future for both Palestinians and Jews.

[lisa needs braces]

Beats me.  You're the one who knows the history and current situation; you're the one who knows why the USA keeps supporting Israel.  So, my previous question as to whether "one state" would satisfy the Palestinians still stands.  Although a complex matter, a man of your insight might be able to see the outlines of a viable future for both Palestinians and Jews.

It's only a "complex" issue to Zionists and their sympathizers who want to muddle up the simple moral issue at the heart of the conflict: Israel was a country randomly created mere decades ago--for the benefit of one people at the expense of another. All the wars and strive and terrorism derive from that fact. A one state solution would address that foundational problem. And I guess it was a mistake in the first place to answer your question of whether or not that would "satisfy the Palestinians."

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I wonder how realistic a 1-state solution could be, given the deep mutual antipathy existing between Jews and Arabs.

Perhaps the example of Israel's Arab citizens (c. 20% of the total pop) might provide some pointers.

[Bunny]

With all due respect, I am suspecting that not everyone taking part in this discussion is neutral to it.

Regardless, I'd like to affirm I don't really care about semites or anti-semites, which is exactly why my offered opinion was based on a body count. That might also be the case for many people, speaking both for and against either side, and not necessarily anti-something.

I really don't see how body count has anything to do with this.  In every war, one side is going to have a higher body count than the other, and that doesn't mean that the ones with the lower body count are in the wrong.  It just means that they prosecuted the war more economically. 

I have no doubt that if Hamas had sufficient manpower and fire power, they would have invaded Israel a long time ago.  They aren't exactly looking for a peaceful disposition of the hostilities. 

[Renfield]

I really don't see how body count has anything to do with this.  In every war, one side is going to have a higher body count than the other, and that doesn't mean that the ones with the lower body count are in the wrong.  It just means that they prosecuted the war more economically. 

I have no doubt that if Hamas had sufficient manpower and fire power, they would have invaded Israel a long time ago.  They aren't exactly looking for a peaceful disposition of the hostilities. 

I never discussed motive. I discussed result, and that is where the body count comes in.

If we are to exclude a body count, viz. human lives lost, from the equation, then I don't see what's left worth retaining.

(Although you are free to provide an example, of course. )

[Bunny]

I never discussed motive. I discussed result, and that is where the body count comes in.

If we are to exclude a body count, viz. human lives lost, from the equation, then I don't see what's left worth retaining.

(Although you are free to provide an example, of course. )

Perhaps, the things worth retaining are those that men are willing to die for.  If you are not willing to die for anything, then you aren't living for anything either.

[Herman]

If you are not willing to die for anything, then you aren't living for anything either.

claptrap

[Renfield]

Perhaps, the things worth retaining are those that men are willing to die for.  If you are not willing to die for anything, then you aren't living for anything either.

But even if I accept the highlighted assertion, which I don't: are these men and women (and children) dying because they fight for their ideals, or because they are in the middle of others fighting for their own ideals? It is that which disturbs me the most, how nonchalantly it is taken.

(With reference to Israel, Hamas, Russia, Georgia, or whoever else.)

[Bunny]

Never nonchalantly.  Blood is extremely expensive, and should not be casually spent.

The war in the Middle East is what it is.  There are no civilian casualties there.  Everyone who lives there is committed to one faction or another, and some of those factions are determined on the complete extermination of the others.  When you have men, women, and even children who are taught that it is good to die in order to kill, then there will never be any peace.  When some believe that they are exclusively right and all others are wrong, then there can never be peace.  Peace begins with tolerance for others, and tolerance is not being taught in Gaza. 

[bwv 1080]

The war was pretty simple - Israel engaged in extracting reprisals against Palestinian civilians for harboring Hamas terrorists. By shelling every location they are attacked from they are calling Hamas's bluff on their civilian shield strategy. The Palestinians are guilty and Israel really has no other options, so I don't really blame them but lets call a spade a spade.

there is a good analysis by Tom Friedman here on how Israel did the same against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/20...html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[Renfield]

The war in the Middle East is what it is.  There are no civilian casualties there.  Everyone who lives there is committed to one faction or another, and some of those factions are determined on the complete extermination of the others.  When you have men, women, and even children who are taught that it is good to die in order to kill, then there will never be any peace.  When some believe that they are exclusively right and all others are wrong, then there can never be peace.

I am sorry you think that way.

All Americans are then taught to bomb people whose oil is within their reach, all Russians to commit genocide, and all Chinese to oppress. Even the children. And the law should be rewritten with the price of human life clearly stated in USD, to simplify a calculation of cost-benefit.

I rest my case, and will not be returning to this topic.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I am sorry you think that way.

All Americans are then taught to bomb people whose oil is within their reach, all Russians to commit genocide, and all Chinese to oppress. Even the children. And the law should be rewritten with the price of human life clearly stated in USD, to simplify a calculation of cost-benefit.

My exact sentiments.

What Bunny does not understand is that at this stage the Zionist state of Israel is very quickly becoming the Jews' worst enemy.

[Bulldog]

My exact sentiments.

What Bunny does not understand is that at this stage the Zionist state of Israel is very quickly becoming the Jews' worst enemy.

What an ignorant statement!!!  Israel is the haven for jews around the world.  If living in the United States became dangerous for jews, they would all flock to Israel.  Further, the use of the word "Zionist" is way past being relevant, given that Israel has been in existence for about 60 years.

Knowing nothing of the jewish mindset, The Unrepentant Pelleastrian should stick to Debussy's opera or whatever else he might have some insight about.

[Herman]

If living in the United States became dangerous for jews, they would all flock to Israel. 

Big if.

[aquablob]

I never discussed motive. I discussed result, and that is where the body count comes in.

If we are to exclude a body count, viz. human lives lost, from the equation, then I don't see what's left worth retaining.

It's not about excluding body count ("result," as you say), but including what you call "motive." You discuss the Israeli offensive as if it exists in a vacuum.

Again, I'm not saying that Israel was justified, but you declared they were unjustified solely on the basis of "result." Surely the result must be considered, as you say, but the surrounding context must be considered also. If not, then every single act of self defense would be "unjustified," no? (And by the way, I do not mean by this that Israel's offensive is merely self defense; I just mean to demonstrate that judgment made without consideration of context is of little merit).

[Bulldog]

Big if.

Right, and I don't anticipate anything happening here that would result in an exodus of American jews to Israel.  But just knowing it's there to welcome us is a plus.

[Renfield]

Let me clarify:

If not, then every single act of self defense would be "unjustified," no?

Not if you assess the body count as a ratio. Additionally, recall my phrasing:

There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200.

The justification is of the body count, not the offensive per se. One can still defend one's national interests without killing this disproportionately many people, to begin with. And of course, the absolute body count does matter. In fact, in my opinion it must rise above any context, as people are essentially the reason anyone fights any war for. The value of human life is not measurable.